"Love is a temporary madness, it erupts like volcanoes and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being 'in love', which any fool can do. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two."

* about the reasons thing - i actually don't know. i mean i'm thinking more of like 'his eyes' / 'he's cute and we click really well' / 'the way he looks at me' sort.. and even 'because he makes me a better me' / 'because i see myself in him' - because that's still sorta self-centered, and this / your perception of this could possibly change over time, too? but what about 'because when i look at him i see Christ' / 'because i know i can count on him to...something something..'... 'because we fit each other like perfect complementary parts and we are each other's better halves...' idk i'm having a hard time coming up with test examples. but i think this has to come with a lot deeper exploration and it really goes even right down to what you consider the purpose of marriage / whether God has a part to play in this. but i mean, this conversation wasn't so much in the context of a godly relationship - that's a whole different ball game, and also considers love much more in the sense of a duty than an emotion / a state of heart??... aiya it's hard, the word 'love' is so huge. anyway, if you have thoughts about this, lmk